Hi, moving to meego-community from meego-dev and keeping the rest of CCs Julian wrote: > There is libmeegotouch and a lot of stuff has meego in the package > names, we can't really change that without breaking compatibility.
There shouldn't be any problem if you port a library keeping its package name and respecting its license. See http://lists.meego.com/pipermail/meego-community/2010-December/002889.html & http://wiki.meego.com/MeeGo_in_package_names > Some further things for Ibrahim: I'm not Ibrahim :) but I'm one of the persons willing to keep a good MeeGo branding and trademark policy as well as a good free software collaboration. This is how I see your position wrt Ibrahim's guidelines: > * Our team name is a unix group name and it's pkg-meego (meaning > package software from MeeGo). The trademark is used to refer to > the upstream part, so people know what is packaged. That's the > same for pkg-mozilla and all the other teams, and just a > technical detail. We'd like to keep it, since changing it is > impossible (you need to delete the old group and create a new > one instead). The first problem to solve is the public name of the software you want to release. On IRC you (juliank) have mentioned that you are aiming towards "Debian Handset", "Debian Netbook", "Debian IVI". Fine from a MeeGo perspective: nothing to say as there is no MeeGo reference there. As long as the visible communication of the project refers to that, the rest (e.g. a unix group name) are little details. > * I propose that we use MeeGo in other things like this: > * Replace: > * Debian MeeGo Team > * Debian MeeGo stack maintainers > * Debian MeeGo packaging Team > * By: > * Packagers of MeeGo-originated and related > software > * This makes it clear that MeeGo refers to upstream only, > and that this is not officially MeeGo. Again, not a big deal since this is mostly used for "Debian internal" communication and indeed the proposed description is more clear. > * Package names contain meego everywhere. According to common > believe, they are not subject to trademark restrictions (that's > why we had a firefox compatibility package for > firefox->iceweasel transition). They are merely an > implementation detail, that MeeGo set in stone, and we cannot > change it without breaking compatibility As said, as long as you respect the license of the package you are free to reuse, redistribute, etc, keeping the original name of the package. > So, I propose that we replace occurences of MeeGo in descriptive text > with MeeGo-originated, and use meego only (and only as a technical > detail such as file or package name) where we are required to do so, > that is, in libraries like libmeegotouch. From my reading this is > consistent with the trademark policy and it clearly shows that it is not > meego. Sounds reasonable. > Furthermore, if MeeGo is an open project and the MeeGo trademark owned > by LF, why is Nokia handled differently than anyone else? Why are they > allowed to use MeeGo/Harmattan for the next product when it is in fact > not MeeGo? Coincidentally, I work at Nokia and know the subject. :) "MeeGo-Harmattan" is a term that myself and others have used in our regular discussions within the Maemo and MeeGo communities, just for clarity. As far as I know, Nokia will present a proposal to the MeeGo Technical Steering Group to define the use of the MeeGo brand in relation to the OS release codenamed Harmattan. The use of the MeeGo brand in Nokia products must go through the same processes open to anybody else. -- Quim Gil MeeGo advocate _______________________________________________ Pkg-meego-maintainers mailing list Pkgemail@example.com http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-meego-maintainers